Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate)
Page S4406-S4407
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to
extend my deep appreciation to my good friend, Senator Reid, for his
very genuine persistence in pursuing this Intelligence authorization
bill. He has worked hard, both as minority leader and as majority
leader, to try to make this happen.
I suspect Senator Bond and I will have some fairly strong words to
say in agreement about this because I think both of us are very
dismayed that despite the very considerable efforts of Vice Chairman
Bond and myself--we operate very closely together--to get agreement on
this bill, there is still an objection to its consideration, as I
understand.
It is almost inconceivable to me we are forced to come to this point
of cloture and motions to proceed and all kinds of things on a national
security bill. I do not understand that, where that comes from, why the
motivation, how that happens.
In any event, we are talking about the authorization bill of the
Intelligence Committee for 2007; and this is already the period for the
2008 authorization bill. It is inexcusable. From 1978 through 2004--
that is a long time, 1978 to 2004--every year, there was an
authorization bill, like every year there is a military authorization,
Armed Services authorization bill. It happens in all major committees.
The Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of having authorization bills
every single year. This year and the last year--and I think the
preceding year--we did not.
It is very frustrating to the Senator from Missouri and myself. This
should be considered, and is considered, must-pass legislation. It is
in the national interest. We are in the middle of a war on terror. Our
continued military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan calls for an
analysis of what is going on in the intelligence community, putting it
into authorization form so it can go on to be discussed and debated on
the floor.
It is a matter of life and death. But we are being blocked again from
considering a bill that provides the legislative roadmap for America's
intelligence programs. America is not meant to work that way. Similar
to the bills I have mentioned, you have to get authorization. It is
done routinely. It is very puzzling.
Now, there are 16 separate provisions under our 2007 authorization
bill--we are in the period for the 2008 authorization bill--enhancing
and clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.
These provisions include improvements to the way we approach and manage
human intelligence, which the vice chairman and I feel very strongly
about, information sharing, and the ability to manage intelligence
community resources. Those are words with a great deal behind them.
I, like many of my colleagues, have been increasingly concerned about
the seemingly endless stream of leaks of classified information. This
bill includes provisions improving the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence, whom we put in charge to look at matters such as
these, and the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and
methods and a provision to increase the penalties for unauthorized
disclosure of the identity of a covert agent.
The bill also contains numerous provisions intended to improve
oversight of the intelligence community. We have not been doing that in
the sense that we should, and Vice Chairman Bond and I worked very
closely together on this issue. He is a ferocious pursuer of
intelligence wherever he can find it, and he usually manages to bring
it back with him. Section 408 will establish a statutory inspector
general for the intelligence community. The DNI, the Director of
National Intelligence, has used his power to create an IG, but the
power to do so doesn't mean a requirement to do so. So we would
strengthen that position in this legislation and make it more
accountable to Congress.
Section 434 of the bill strengthens accountability and oversight of
the technical intelligence agencies by providing a very important
matter: that the heads of the National Security Agency, the National
Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
are to be appointed by the President, as they have been but with the
advice and consent of the Senate. That has not been the case. This is
an enormous fountain of intelligence, and we think they ought to be
responsive to the two Intelligence Committees in the Senate and the
House.
My colleagues may be surprised that the head of an agency with as
central a role in the intelligence community as the National Security
Agency or an agency with the enormous budget of the National
Reconnaissance Office is not appointed with Senate confirmation. It is
really shocking. Whether it was an oversight or not, I have no idea,
but it is wrong. Senator Mikulski pointed this out. This bill would
correct that.
Section 108, cosponsored in committee last year by Senators Levin and
Hagel, seeks to improve the timely flow of information to congressional
intelligence committees. In other words, things can't be put off for a
year or 2 years, 6 months or whatever. We try to enforce our view that
we are an oversight group and we intend to be treated as such and we
will not be treated in a lesser way. Similar language was included in
the intelligence reform legislation that passed the Senate in 2004 and
in S. 4, which passed the Senate last month.
There are requirements for the provision of specific information,
including a report on the implementation of the Detainee Treatment Act
and a separate report on the operation of clandestine detention
facilities. These are not trivial matters, as the Presiding Officer
understands, and they cannot be dealt with trivially by this body, and
therefore we need this bill.
These provisions are all intended to improve our ability to make
decisions
[[Page S4407]]
leading to better intelligence for the military and policymakers. There
is no reason the Senate cannot pass the bill and do so quickly so that
we can conference with the House and do that quickly so that we can
pass the bill, the authorization bill of 2007, here in April of 2007
and proceed on.
I will close by saying: I would remind my colleagues that we are at
war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and we are at war in scores--or
potentially at war in scores of countries around the world where al-
Qaida is strong and growing, or groups such as the Taliban or others
are growing. We can't have delay. This is an important bill. I
encourage my colleagues to vote for the motion to invoke cloture and
allow this process to move forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly join with my new chairman
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in urging
our colleagues to work constructively with us in reestablishing
congressional oversight of our intelligence community.
More than 30 years ago, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
was formed to address a serious problem, and that problem was
previously a complete lack of congressional oversight of the U.S.
intelligence operations. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the
findings of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight
of intelligence was still seriously lacking in many areas.
With the painful lessons of 9/11 in mind and the threats laid out by
Chairman Rockefeller, it is more important than ever that we perform
our oversight role. Unfortunately, the last Congress failed to see an
intelligence authorization bill pass the Senate, although Chairman
Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller tried hard to pass one. There
were political reasons--neither side of the aisle was blameless in that
regard--but it did not happen.
When Senator McConnell asked me to be vice chairman of the
Intelligence Committee for this session of Congress, I wrote a letter
with suggestions to the chairman on the priorities, and at the top of
the list was passing the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization
Act. Chairman Rockefeller and I strongly agreed that if we were to be
able to conduct constructive oversight and make our suggestions and our
requests and demands known, we would have to pass this bill. We have to
pass authorization bills. We have been in agreement on that matter
since the beginning.
We have a managers' amendment we will be describing in more detail
which we will offer which addresses some of the serious concerns other
Members and I have had for some time, and I would ask anybody who has
concerns about the underlying bill to look at the managers' amendment,
which I think addresses most, if not all, of the serious concerns that
might be raised.
We have to reassert our oversight. Now, there may be some officials
in the executive branch who prefer a lack of congressional oversight. I
sure understand their positions. If I were running an agency, I
wouldn't want to have Congress looking over my shoulder. But that is
not how the system works. We have a responsibility to provide the
funding and oversee how they are carrying out their duties, and I
suggest this bill will give us the power to do so and ensure
constructive accountability. One of the most significant means of
providing such accountability is authorizing the appropriations for the
intelligence community's national intelligence program, or NIP. For
that reason, the authorization of the appropriations section in this
bill may be its most important section.
Is this bill perfect? No. There is no such thing as perfect
legislation--I have never seen one, and I don't expect to see one--but
we all get an opportunity and will have an opportunity to vote to
improve it.
The bill, as reported, is largely the same bill as last year and
contains many provisions sought by intelligence community agencies to
help them in their job. For example, the bill provides the Director of
National Intelligence with additional authorities to improve
information access across the intelligence community. So there can no
longer be stovepipes of information not shared among the agencies
collecting it. The DNI is given full access to human intelligence and
the authority to improve access and coordination across the community.
Nearly half of the provisions contained in this bill were requested
by the intelligence community for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. We are in
the process of receiving the IC request for 2008, as it clears OMB.
When we pass this bill, we will have addressed 23 of the 31 cleared
provisions that are contained in the IC's fiscal 2008 request.
There is also included an example of where our committee wants to
take some initiative. The bill creates within the office of the DNI a
National Space Intelligence Center--or we may call it an office--to
address intelligence collections related to our space assets or threats
to the United States from space. The need for this office was
emphasized recently by the successful antisatellite weapons test by the
People's Republic of China. Creating this new office or center is an
example of the forward-leaning oversight that corrects a present
deficiency within the IC.
It is time the Senate reassert its constitutional role in oversight.
Does the process have warts? As I said, of course it does, but it is a
critical component of our national security.
I urge all Senators to work with us constructively to pass the bill.
We look forward to hearing from both sides on the amendments they have,
and maybe we will be able to clear many of them and get this bill
passed. We ask that Members bring those amendments to us as soon as
possible.
Again, I strongly urge and request my colleagues who recognize that
intelligence is so important in this global war on terror declared on
us by al-Qaida and radical Islamists--not a war we started but a war
they started, that can only be countered by good intelligence--help us
get to the process of improving our intelligence community and our
intelligence performance.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his leadership, I thank the
Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
____________________
Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate)
Page S4413-S4428
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 372, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 372, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States
Government.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 20, S. 372, Intelligence
Authorization.
Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed,
Jon Tester, Patty Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Amy Klobuchar,
Blanche L. Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max
Baucus, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan, Ken
Salazar, Dick Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to consideration of S. 372, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Coburn
Grassley
Kyl
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Dodd
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[...]
Congressional Record: April 12, 2007 (Senate)
Page S4428-S4429
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 372) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 20, S.
372, the Intelligence Authorization bill of 2007.
Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Russell D. Feingold, Jay
Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jeff
Bingaman, Robert Menendez, B.A. Mikulski, Dianne
Feinstein, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, S.
Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ron
Wyden.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
live quorum be waived and the cloture vote occur on Monday, April 16,
at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of the bill on Monday at 3 p.m. and that Senator
Rockefeller be recognized at that time to offer a managers' amendment
on behalf of himself and Senator Bond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate invoked cloture on
the motion to proceed to the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence
authorization bill.
However, as a result of objections from the other side, the Senate
now finds itself in the unfortunate position of having to run out the
clock for the next several days rather than promptly considering and
completing action on this important legislation.
[[Page S4429]]
Let me remind my colleagues of the long road we have been down with
this bill already.
The previous Republican-controlled Congress failed to pass an
intelligence authorization bill in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year
2007--2 years in a row.
That is an unprecedented and unacceptable record for this body: prior
to that, Congress had passed this bill every single year for 27 years,
often with the bipartisan support of every Senator.
As my colleagues know, the Intelligence authorization bill funds the
operations of the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community--
including the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Department--and all
the critical work they do to keep Americans safe and fight the war on
terror.
It includes essential initiatives that would improve our efforts to
fight terrorism and control weapons of mass destruction, enhance our
intelligence collection capabilities, and strengthen intelligence
oversight.
Blocking the passage of this bill, as a handful of Senators on the
other side of the aisle have done over the last couple of years, has
left Congress silent on these important matters and made America less
secure.
Most of us in the Senate recognize how important it is to pass this
bill. We know it is not a partisan issue, that there are no political
points to be scored on either side. But I am increasingly disappointed
at the continued obstructionism by several Republicans on a matter of
national security.
Earlier this year, Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond
attempted to bring this bill up for consideration. We were told the
objections of a single Senator on the other side of the aisle blocked
their efforts.
I have heard that some Senators on the other side of the aisle are
interested in offering amendments, yet at this time none of these
amendments have surfaced or seen the light of day.
I would certainly like to be reasonable and accommodate every
Senator's interest in debating amendments offered in good faith, but I
am increasingly concerned that we are seeing obstructionism and delay
tactics, rather than productive debate.
Some may wonder what is behind the delay. At a time of war, why would
a handful of Senators be willing to hold up a bill that is crucial to
our national security?
Why would a group of Senators hold up a bill that has always passed
quickly, with little debate or amendment?
Why would they hold up a bill that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan
support?
It appears the answer lies not in the legislation before us now but
the legislation the Senate will turn to next:
A Medicare bill that will lower drug costs for seniors and people
with disabilities by giving the Federal Government the power to
negotiate drug prices with some of this Nation's most powerful and
profitable companies.
This is not good faith debate--it is a cynical effort by the drug
companies--their lobbyists in Gucci shoes and chauffeured limousines--
and their supporters--to hold this national security bill hostage and
delay the Senate from acting on legislation to help society's most
vulnerable.
So I ask my colleagues to consider this fair notice: unless I see
some signs of good faith from the other side of the aisle toward a
reasonable timeframe for considering a reasonable number of amendments,
I will file cloture on this bill tomorrow.
The Senate has a lot of work ahead of it and it should begin with the
swift consideration and passage of this bill.
____________________